Is NOAA About to Crack? ‘Pausebuster’ study under intense scrutiny.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?

A farce from the start?

When do you think it started?

I remember reading about it circa 1977.

originally posted by: Sunwolf
I remember reading about it circa 1977.

LBJ spoke before Congress about the increase of CO2 and had a committee study the issue in 1965.

Might want to read up on that thread.

originally posted by: smurfy
Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.
“NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored,” he wrote.

www.washingtonpost.com... a-documents/

This stuff is getting heavy, and Lamar Smith seems determined to get to the truth of all this, while the idea now of whistleblowers at NOOA, or a committee they are involved with, or both, is pretty serious.

Uh-huh.

Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation

But a spokeswoman for Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal that in June published the paper by climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an interview that their research was subject to a longer, more intensive review than is customary.

“This paper went through as rigorous a review as it could have received,” said Ginger Pinholster, chief of communications for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science. “Any suggestion that the review was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.”

How about nope, it's just another witch hunt like 'Climategate.'

She said the paper, submitted to the journal in December, went through two rounds of peer review by other scientists in the field before it was accepted in May. The number of outside reviewers was larger than usual, and the time from submission to online publication was about 50 percent longer than the journal’s average of 109 days, Pinholster said.

During the review, the research was sent back to NOAA for revision and clarification, she said. And because it was based on such an “intensive” examination of global temperature data, the reviewed was handled by one of the journal’s senior editors, she said, “so it could be more carefully assessed.

Oh, how about that... instead of the alleged rushed nature of the report, it was looked over with essentially a fine-toothed comb over a much longer time than normal.

What evidence has he presented, anyway?

Smith and his committee have yet to offer details of the allegations that the research was rushed.

Ah.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: 727Sky

I just found this very funny vid I had not seen before :>)

may as well laugh because crying does no good at all .

Had to laugh at the piece about Adam and Eve...

a reply to: raymundoko

Oh no, Anthony Watts is in trouble!!



Keep drinking that sugary Kool Aid raymundoko...

Nowhere does you sourcewatch or your Mother Jones link "confirm" the document was a hoax. They simply quote the Heartland Institute claiming it was a hoax. According to your logic, Watergate was therefore not a criminal scandal because Richard Nixon reassured us all he's not a crook. Phew.

If the document was just an anonymous forgery, it was the most amazing forgery of all time, because this "fake" strategy plan managed to accurately predict the HI's actual strategy two years down the road. What an amazing coincidence huh!

Anthony Watts original claim to fame was through his surface stations project, not climategate. He just jumped on that bandwagon with the rest of the mob.

But it doesn't even matter - you are clearly reaching to deflect from plain facts.

Anthony Watts has a proven long standing relationship with the Heartland Institute who published his work over 6 years ago. He also takes money from them, the exact amount and whether he's "officially" on the payroll is immaterial, because if he had any integrity at all he would never associate himself with these obvious shills, period. And we KNOW they are shills because we have proof from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, or do you want to pretend those court-released documents are a hoax too?

I constantly get called an alarmist around these parts, but what scares me waaaay more than actual global warming is seeing how blindly brainwashed some people are by the very obvious propaganda at play here.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Global warming has been a farce from the start and it continues to be a grand hoax.I must now ask the question why?
Money is involved obviously but money cannot be the only reason.
I wonder what?

tell that to the native peoples of the equatorial island nations that have had to relocate, or are in the process of relocating, due to their island nations slowly being flooded

Ok,I will:www.bom.gov.au...



doesn`t appear to be any sea level rise,now does there?

So when totally rebutted you resort to an attempt at comical insults?

Richard Nixon was impeached and resigned as president...another logical fallacy in your part.

a reply to: mc_squared

a reply to: raymundoko

You rebutted absolutely nothing. You're just having a conversation with yourself making up mental gymnastic excuses for everything presented here. "Oh Anthony Watts is innocent because he only took $44,000 instead of $90,000 from these lobbyist shills."

You quoted an excerpt of an email from the Heartland Institute claiming they were framed, but because that excerpt appears in a Mother Jones article you somehow spun that into the idea that these sources posting the quote "acknowledged" it was all a hoax.

Who do you think you're fooling with this weaksauce dishonesty?

The Richard Nixon analogy stands - it's like the NY Times reporting his "I am not a crook" speech, and you deciding that means the NY Times "acknowledged" Nixon's innocence. Puh-leaze.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Maybe because there are no documents to subpoena.

Is that based on your "best guess"?

It doesn't stand because his crook speach was a year before he admitted wrongdoing and resigned after impeachment. Same with Clinton.

In this case your "document" was sent by an anonymous source and did not match any other documents obtained. He obtained it separately from the other documents he released. No organization was able to verify the authenticity of that specific document and neither was Peter himself. Peter used a logical fallacy to purport the one document as also legitimate. Again, why did he not receive the same document when he was posing as a board member? Why did he only receive this one document anonymously via postal mail? To ignore those questions shows your bias, although probably rightfully placed, has skewed your judgement on the matter.

The only one playing mental gymnastics is you and it's obvious. I'm not a fan of Watts as I've discussed in previous threads as he did a lot of damage to skeptics of catastrophic climate change. I just know shillary when I see and and both Watts and Gleick forayed into it. The HI is neck deep in it and I am not a fan of theirs either, I'm just not going to propagate a potential lie.

Edit: For example, you do know that HI submitted an affidavit to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in an attempt to press charges against Glieck and in that affidavit they claim the document is fake. If it ended up going to court they could be charged with perjury for making that claim since an affidavit can be used as evidence in court.

Perjury by False Affidavit

a reply to: mc_squared

It's a pretty I good guess and probably the right one.

Even if the numbers were slightly rushed and are slightly off I guarantee you the trend is the same, probably just not as steep.

All that will result is someone getting fired and given another job somewhere else without any damage do his scientific career and business as usual.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

a reply to: jrod

Could you give us a list of these "thousands of independent scientists who support AGW"?...

Do not post the claims from policymakers of scientific institutions which have been found to be lying about the opinions of their member scientists...

BTW, could you prove that Anthony Watts is getting paid by Exxon as you claim?

In fact, could you prove ANYTHING you have claimed?...

In the past you have never been able to prove anything you claim. Lots of hot air, but no meat at all in your arguments...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Isn't it ironic how the AGW religious followers always proclaim anyone who disagrees with them "must be a shill working for oil", even when they can't prove such claims. Yet every time the aGW scientists are caught lying, manipulating temperature data, erasing raw temperature data, etc, etc, these same people make excuses for their lying, manipulative scientists?...

The claim that IPCC had thousands of scientists experts in climate change has been proven to be false.

...
Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
...

The above can be found at the end of page 10 and beginning of page 11. Although on overall it is a good read.
www.probeinternational.org...

In fact, of the real scientists with degrees in climate science, who participated in the reports, more have been found to be either against the AGW claim, or they simply state we don't know for certain what is causing climate change.

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...

...
46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC
1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."

18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."

19. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

20. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
...

undeceivingourselves.org...

Heck, there have been IPCC experts who have come forward to state the majority of the "claimed 2,500 experts" were not experts at all in any field related to Climate Change. The majority were simply "policymakers" who work for their governments to try to use Climate Change to further their country's political and economic agendas...

Oh hey, according to the AGW religious followers the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) must be lying about the Hadley Center for Climate Change tampering with Russian temperature data all in the name of AGW...

There is plenty of evidence against the AGW religious claims.

originally posted by: raymundoko
It's a pretty I good guess and probably the right one.

Even if the numbers were slightly rushed and are slightly off I guarantee you the trend is the same, probably just not as steep.

All that will result is someone getting fired and given another job somewhere else without any damage do his scientific career and business as usual.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

But that's the thing. no one can guarantee anything prior to 1880 as far as trends go.

originally posted by: Greven

Uh-huh.
Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation

I missed that post, however the form is a mere rebuttal to Lamar Smith's statements, it is not evidential, neither is Lamar's initial statement and both sides need to come up with the goodies in the form of a paper trail of some kind.
It's tittle tattle, and it's obvious you are going to the lowest common denominator by trying to indulge me with one side of the tittle tattle, as if it is true and written in stone...it doesn't work for me, I'm a skeptic of those who have agenda...either way. Still, I suppose people need to rattle on just to get the Co2 out of their body...otherwise they'll die!

originally posted by: schuyler
Two things are certain.

1. Global Warming is real. Take a look at the Menendahl Glacier today versus in 1967. The glacial retreat is amazing and it is indisputable.

2. Scientists have been caught red-handed fudging the numbers. "Hide the decline" is real. That's what they did. They hid tree ring cores which showed a reduction in temperature today. They hid it because they would have had to explain it. The reason is because they used tree ring cores to establish temperatures in the past and if they don't work now, there's no good reason to think they did then. The numbers they have used to establish global warming are on very shaky ground. And we know they have cheated. This is also indisputable.

3. They just found a tropical forest buried in the Arctic. This is indisputable. The Earth used to be warmer--a LOT warmer than it is today. That's when your typical bracken firm was 60 feet tall. CO2 is plant food. It makes plants grow. That is indisputable.

4. Al Gore got his graph wrong. He said an out flow of CO2 resulted in higher temperatures. That was when the granularity of his data led him to think that, trained climate scientist that he is. However, refined techniques show that he got it backwards. In truth warming temperatures created an outflow of CO2, perhaps out gassed by the oceans as they warmed up.

5. The hockey stick temperature graph is BS. The input of ANY "red noise" creates a hockey stick in the program they used. "Red noise" is like stock quotes, where the next number depends on the last. "White noise" is entirely random.

6. Temperature is rising compared to what? Compared to the "Little Ice Age" of the last 1700's it IS warming. That's when you could ice skate on a frozen River Thames. Compared to the Medieval Warming Period it isn't. That's when you could grow wine grapes in Scotland and raise cattle in "Green"land which used to be green before all the snow fell on it.

Bottom line is that the numbers have been intentionally fudged. If the globe is warming anyway, the question becomes, why did they feel it necessary to do this? Why couldn't they let the real numbers speak for themselves? Why did they "hide the decline"?

That they are forcing NOAA to come clean is a good thing. If you are so certain they are correct, then you have nothing to fear because all the internal emails and numbers will support what you believe. Rather than criticize it, let it happen so that you can be entirely vindicated and trumpet your success to the rest of us.

What are you sacred of?

Have you read the Climategate emails? If you have, why AREN'T you scared of what they have been doing?

I just wanted to say you are making a flawed assumption from your first factoid. A single melting glacier just means that the area where that glacier is located is warming up, it does not mean that the whole planet is warming up. Melting glaciers are completely normal - the great lakes in the United States were created by melting glaciers.

I agree with most of everything else you said, and if you take this all together it seems that we are entering a period of global cooling, not global warming.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are not here to discuss the actual science, which is evident by your opening line refering AGW as a religion.

As usual, you just troll these threads...and offer no actual science.

You guys keep on astroturfing these threads, when the reality is educated and free thinkers have accepted the science behind AGW.

There is no doubt that human activity is influencing the climate. To deny this reality is beyond ignorance.

None of those real scientists you quoted disagree with AGW. They may disagree with how much man contributes or how bad it actually is or how fast it will warm or even if it will be catastrophic, but they all agree we are warming and man contributes even if only a tiny fraction.

Most of those specific ones you quoted disagree with catastrophic climate change which is where I stand.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I am curious to see what the Washington Post uncovers, they do have a long pedigree of serious investigative journalism.

Well the Washington Post recently published an article(your post was the 22nd of Nov, the article 24th of Nov.)

Care to give your .02?

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: jrod

In amazement we watch as the AGW believers actually think they know the full story, and that they are not being hoodwinked in ways they may not see.

Why is it, that you MUST believe everything you are told by a core group of scientists, despite it being INCREDIBLY possible and likely, that a whole lot more is going on, and you are being fenced into one belief set.